ML20076E146
| ML20076E146 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Comanche Peak  |
| Issue date: | 08/16/1983 |
| From: | Ellis J Citizens Association for Sound Energy |
| To: | Atomic Safety and Licensing Board Panel |
| References | |
| NUDOCS 8308240161 | |
| Download: ML20076E146 (8) | |
Text
-
.u UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION BEFORETHEATOMICSAFETYANDLICENSINGBgDg5 23 N1:08
{
CFFICE OF SECREIM./
In the Matter of 00CETmG & SER'N I
BRANCH APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES I
Docket Nos. 50-445 GENERATING COMPANY, ET AL. FOR and 50-446 AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR g
COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC I
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES)
CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND GRDER ON THERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS Pursuant to 10 CFR 2.730(c), CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy),
Invervenor herein, hereby files this, its Answer to Applicants' Motion for Clarification of Memorandum and Order on Thermal Stress and Pipe Supports, filed by Applicants on 8/2/83 and received by CASE on 8/6/83.
First, the Board should be aware that the record regarding when the so-called " editorial revision" to the ASME Code was actually prepared, passed, or published is not as clear in the record as Applicants would have it believe.
In 4
their 8/2/83 Motion, Applicants state:
"The revision to the Code to which the Board refers was published as an l
editorial revision in the Winter 1982 Addenda to the 1980 Edition of the l
ASME Code (see CASE Exhibit 768; Tr. 5225-26).
However, the revision was passed in March 1982, by the main committee of the ASME (Tr. 5216, 5226). tee allegations in this proceeding regarding consideration of thermal stress in pipe support design were not raised until July 1982 (Tr. 3073). Thus, the Board's inference that the revision to the Code was at all influenced by the raising of these allegations in this pro-ceeding is unfounded and should be deleted from its Memorandum and Order."
(Emphases in the original.)
8308240161 830816 PDR ADOCK 05000445 G
PDR b
. 4 As Applicants stated, this issue was raised in these hearings in July 1982 (testimony of Mark Anthony Walsh, CASE Exhibit 659, 7/28/82). However, as stated my Mr. Walsh in his testimony (page 3):
"For six months (from September until sometime in February), our team worked on each and every pipe support, testing for LOCA conditions.
On March 3,1982 a TUSI management meeting was held, where representa-tives from TUSI, Gibbs & Hill, Westinghouse and Black & Vetch discussed the inclusion of LOCA in pipe support designs.
In a memo dated March 8, 1982 which summarized the conclusions arrived at during the March 3rd i
meeting, it was stated that ASME section 3, subsection NF would be in-terpreted as not requiring the consideration of any thernal expansion in the event of a LOCA for pipe support design evaluaticns.
In fact, the Code explictly states in that section that such thermal expansion a
must be looked into." (Emphases in the original.)
4 Thus, although Applicants' statement is technically correct in this regard, i
it is also misleading.
The fact is that the March 8th memo which deleted LOCA from consideration at Comanche Peak immediately followed the strong objections of Messrs. Waish and Doyle about LOCA's being excluded. Thus, although Mr.
4 Walsh and Mr. Doyle had not yet expressed their concerns in these proceedings, i
they had expressed their strong concern and objections at Comanche Peak.
It just so happens that the March 8th memo coincides with the time when the Appli-cants claim that the " editorial revision" was passed by the main committee of the ASME.
Is this mere coincidence? CASE has no way of knowing for certain.
l It should also be noted that, in his discussic'1 regarding the revision to the Code (Tr. 5216, 5219-5220, 5224-5228), Applicants ' witness Mr. Reedy stated that:
. a revision to the Code that was passed by the main committee of the ASME last March.
"There was an editorial rewrite of the whole NF design document for design of pipe supports.
In that document that was passed in March, i
1
. it states very clearly -- extremely clearly -- that thermal stresses need not be evaluated for any type of component support.
"That is a clear statement passed by the committee as an editorial change.
"Q:
You stated about a revision to the Code.
Is that being used at Comanche Peak?
"BY WITNESS REEDY: A: Any change to the Code that has been put into
-- that has been published in ASME is allowed to be used anywhere, even though the code of record might be quite some bit earlier.
"This is common, and it is practice everywhere, because it's necessary.
j To my knowledge, the new addenda is not being used. However, the editorial change that was made is strictly editorial. And it's a clarification, if you want to put it that way. But it's an editorial change, and anyone can use it.
4 "Q:
Did they change from thermal stress to some other name?
"8Y WITNESS REEDY: A: They did.not change the name. However, in this l
editorial rewrite, as I recall, they changed the definition, because the definition in Class I where the definition was taken from, there were some examples, and the examples were inappropriate for Subsection NF.
"My recollection is that the comittee changed the examples...
{
... The revision in the code, which was passed as an editorial revision, l
meaning no technical change, and that's the wording that was used in pass-f ing this provision, was an editorial gathering of the data.
" Appendix 17 was taken out of the appendices and moved over into the main body of the code. Then many of the paragraphs had to be renumbered.
"They reorganized how different Class I,11 and III supports would be addressed. They clarified definiticns.
"They made much clearer statements that thermal stress is not to be evaluated for any component supports."
)
)
It is also very interesting to note that when Mr. Walsh, who was cross-i examining as an expert for CASE, sought to inquire as to whether or not the l
l revision of the code to which Mr. Reedy had been referring was discussed at i
i l
1
)
_4_
the March 3 meeting where the decision was made to exclude LOCA from considera-tion at Comanche Peak, Applicants' attorney objected and Mr. Reedy took it from there (Tr. 5225/16-5227/8):
"BY MR. WALSH:
Q: Mr. Krishnan, was that revision of the code brought out in the March 3rd meeting?
"MR. REYNOLDS:
Objection.
It is not a revision to the code. Mr. Reedy has not testified that it's a revision to the code.
" WITNESS REEDY: What I said was there was an action passed the conmittee.
That action, to my best knowledge, has been printed in ASME, Mechanical Engineering, as required by the legal things that publish these for public conment, and the document has been sent to the printer of ASME code document, and will be published as the Winter 1982 Addenda to Sub-section NF.. What I said earlier is anything that's been published in ASME for public comment can be used, and since this was an editorial clarification, it could be used... The notice of that change is in Mechanini Engineering.
I forget which issue, probably September issue of Mechanical Engineering.
"It was passed by the committee in March... March 1982... It has been passed by the committee.
It has been announced or is being announced as a revision to the code... "
(Emphases added.)
Again Mr. Walsh attempted to find out whether or not the revision of the code had been discussed at the March 3 meeting (Tr. 5228/11-5229/2):
"BY MR. WALSH:
Q: Was that information that we were just talking about, Mr. Krishnan, brought out in the March 3rd meeting?
" WITNESS REEDY:
Can I say something here?
"I did not raise this issue before because this information is confidential to the committee until it has been passed through all the process, and I didn't feel it was appropriate and have not mentioned it to anyone until I knew it was being published.
"BY MR. WALSH: Q:
Do you have a copy of that?
"BY WITNESS REEDY: A:
No t wi th me, no.
"Q:
Is there a copy at Comanche Peak?
" WITNESS REEDY: A:
No."
i
e W
s
. i 1
Mr. Krishnan was never allowed to answer the question as to whether or not the revision of the code was discussed in the March 3 meeting, because i
of the interruptions of the attorney for Applicants and Mr. Reedy. And, as so often has happened in these proceedings, the question was not asked a third time and remains unanswered in the record. Was it coincidence that Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Reedy interrupted before Mr. Krishnan could answer?
CASE has no way of knowing for certain. But this makes a second very inter-esting coincidence.
Further, with regard to Mr. Reedy's comments about the rather strange
" confidential" nature of the information which he was bringing fomard in the hearings, he stated that he hadn't mentioned it to anyone until he knew it was being published and that it had been or was being published in an issue (probably the September issue) of Mechanical Engineering. He further stated that he did not have a copy of the publication with him. However, following the September hearings, CASE attempted to secure a copy of the issue of Mechanical Engineering which had the information in it.
It was not in the i
September issue; it was not in any of the issues in 1982 which were at the
!i public library. We were unable to secure a copy of the information until the Winter 1982 Addenda to the 1980 Edition of the ASME Code came out.
j Perhaps the issue which contained the article was an issue which they
(
did not have at the library.
Perhaps Mr. Reedy thought that it was being published but was mistaken. Perhaps there is some other explanation. But one thing is certain -- this is yet a third very interesting coincidence.
r
[
And another thing is certain -- Applicants never supplied a copy of any maga-zine which contained the information discussed by Mr. Reedy in the September hearings.
l _
. ~
CASE is not trying to make any insinuations or reach any conclusions at this time with regard to these matters. However, we submit that the reccrd is deficient regarding these matters. We would think that Applicants would want to clear the record regarding this as quickly as possible (and CASE would like an answer to that unanswered question Mr. Krishnan never answered, now that the Applicants have brought this matter back up).
If Applicants do not, we respectfully request that the Board take whatever steps are necessary to clarify and complete the record in this regard.
With regard to the Board's statement to which Applicants object (that if it had determined it was necessary to rely on the 1982 revision of the Code to reach its conclusion, it "would have been troubled about the appro-priateness of relying on a Code revision that has been promulgated during the pendency of this issue in this case by a committee chaired by a consultant to the applicant"), CASE submits that the Board's statement (based on the current record) that the revision occurred during the pendency of this issue is correct. Further, the current Board has attempted to be very fair to all parties in these proceedings. CASE believes and would hope that the Board's concern would have extended to a similar situation had a witness who was being l
paid as a consultant to CASE or any other party Leel directly involved with such a Code decision. We do not believe that the Board meant any personal offense to Mr. Reedy, but was rather concerned about being placed in such an awkward and untenable position.
1 i
Respectfully submitted, l
1 04f+n- [bGJ pCASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) firs.) Juanita Ellis, President 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446
{
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ED NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 00gKEgc 9
BEFORE THE ATOMIC SAFETY AND LICENSING BOARD 13 NIG 23 N1:08 In the Matter of I
I i
APPLICATION OF TEXAS UTILITIES Q
DockggCQ.0F SEutg 0FFi?E and~%$5 H
GENERAlING COMPANY, ET'AL. FOR Q
AN OPERATING LICENSE FOR Q
50-446
. COMANCHE PEAK STEAM ELECTRIC Q
STATION UNITS #1 AND #2 (CPSES) l
' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE By my signature below, I hereby certify that true and correct copies of CASE'S ANSWER TO APPLICANTS' MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ON 111ERMAL STRESS AND PIPE SUPPORTS have been sent to the names listed below this 16th day of Augus t
, 198_3_,
by: Express Mail where indicated by
- and First Class Mail elsewhere.
- Administrative Judge Peter B. Bloch Alan S. Rosenthal, Esq., Chairman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 4350 East / West Highway, 4th Floor U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Bethesda, Maryland 20014 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Dr. Kenneth A. McCollom, Dean Dr. W. Reed Johnson, Member Livision of Engineering, Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board Architecture and Technology U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oklahoma State University Washington, D. C.
20555 Stillwater, Oklahoma 74074 Thomas S. Moore, Esq., Member
- Dr. Walter H. Jordan Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board 881 W. Outer Drive U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Oak Ridge, Tennessee 37830 Washington, D. C.
20555
- Nicholas S. Reynolds, Esq.
Atomic Scfety and Licenalog Appeal Panel Debevoise & Liberman U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
1200 - 17th St., N. W.
Washington, D. C.
20555 Washington, D. C.
20036 Docketing and Service Section (3 copies) l
- Marjorie Ulman Rothschild, Esq.
Office of the ' Secretary Office of Executive Legal Director, USNRC U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Conmission Maryland National Bank Building Washington, D. C.
20555 i
7735 Old Georgetown Road - Room 10105 j
Bethesda, Maryland 20814 Atomic Safety. and Licensing Board Panel U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington, D. C.
20555
..n.
Certificate of Service Page 2 I
David J. Preister, Esq.
Assistant Attorn'ey General Environmental Protection Division Supreme Court Building.
Austin, Texas 78711 John Collins Regional Administrator, Region IV U. S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission l
611 Ryan' Plaza Dr., Suite 1000 Arlington, Texas 76011 Mr. R. J. Gary Executive Vice President and General Manager Texas Utilities Generating Company 2001 Bryan Tower Dallas, Texas 75201 Lanny Alan Sinkin 838 East Magnolia Avenue San Antonio, Texas 78212 Dr. David H. Boltz 2012 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 i
h l dw-Nu a
pt)ts.) Juanita Ellis, President CASE (Citizens Association for Sound Energy) 1426 S. Polk Dallas, Texas 75224 214/946-9446 I
4 9
m,
-3
--.-.y.
-